Re: [Zope-dev] [RFClet]: What about the request method and the client side trojan?

2002-04-10 Thread Toby Dickenson
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:17:40 -0400, Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think zope's management methods (the potentially destructive ones) and 'coonstructive' ones too should not accept REQUESTs with REQUEST_METHOD GET. This is hard, hard, problem. While some good ideas have been

Re: [Zope-dev] [RFClet]: What about the request method and the client side trojan?

2002-04-10 Thread Lennart Regebro
From: Oliver Bleutgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think zope's management methods (the potentially destructive ones) should not accept REQUESTs with REQUEST_METHOD GET. Do you have any proposal for how to go about doing this? ___ Zope-Dev maillist -

RE: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...

2002-04-10 Thread Brian Lloyd
The idea is to allow user to specify several points of presence (pop) for an object. Does this break security? Probably yes, but in what case? If an object from higly secure envionment appeared somewhere in Anonymous zone, what then? Yes, Anonymous is able to alter object. But there was

Re: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...

2002-04-10 Thread Toby Dickenson
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:30:56 +0300, Myroslav Opyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is Anonymous able to get out of the shared object to secure environment? User X is designated as a manager of folder /Xfolder. In todays Zope /Xfolder is a secure environment He has no authority over objects outside

Re: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...

2002-04-10 Thread Mario Valente
At 01:30 10-04-2002 +0300, Myroslav Opyr wrote: Ok. Let's find out what we have and what we want. First of all we have strict hierarchy in ZODB where each object appears only once in the tree. Thus to access to an object it is only one way from root down to an object through containers. The

RE: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...

2002-04-10 Thread Mario Valente
At 10:06 10-04-2002 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote: What is wrong with leaving this as an add-on product? Why does it _need_ to be a part of the core at all? Useful products are useful, whether or not they come with Zope, and there are plenty of very useful products that don't come built in. I

Re: [Zope-Coders] Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...

2002-04-10 Thread Mario Valente
At 15:12 10-04-2002 +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote: User X is designated as a manager of folder /Xfolder. In todays Zope /Xfolder is a secure environment He has no authority over objects outside that folder, thanks to aq_inContextOf Can he create links to objects outside that folder? No, he

RE: [Zope-dev] [RFClet]: What about the request method and the client side trojan?

2002-04-10 Thread Brian Lloyd
should not accept REQUESTs with REQUEST_METHOD GET. This is hard, hard, problem. While some good ideas have been proposed, there is not really a quick fix that doesn't have some downside that some group somewhere considers a showstopper :( I agree Olivers suggestion is not a total

Support for X-HTTPD-FORWARDED-FOR Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...

2002-04-10 Thread Jim Washington
Support for X-HTTPD-FORWARDED-FOR Code for this is pretty simple: modify 2 files, ZServer/medusa/http_server.py and lib/python/AccessControl/User.py 1. To put the proxy-passed ip address in the zserver log, Around line 269 in ZServer/medusa/http_server.py, add a method

Re: [Zope-dev] [RFClet]: What about the request method and the client side trojan?

2002-04-10 Thread Oliver Bleutgen
Lennart Regebro wrote: From: Oliver Bleutgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think zope's management methods (the potentially destructive ones) should not accept REQUESTs with REQUEST_METHOD GET. Do you have any proposal for how to go about doing this? Well, I don't see how one could do that

Re: [Zope-dev] [RFClet]: What about the request method and the client side trojan?

2002-04-10 Thread Lennart Regebro
From: Oliver Bleutgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was thinking more of something like adding the checks individually to each method in stock zope for which it is appropriate. Brian is of course right in his other mail by stating that this might and will break custom products which use the wrong

Re: Support for X-HTTPD-FORWARDED-FOR Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...

2002-04-10 Thread Oliver Bleutgen
Jim Washington wrote: 2. If we want to get fancy about allowing authentication using that ip address like naked ZServers can do, In lib/python/AccessControl/User.py, around line 1116, change if request.has_key('REMOTE_ADDR'): addr=request['REMOTE_ADDR'] to if

Re: [Zope-dev] [RFClet]: What about the request method and the client side trojan?

2002-04-10 Thread Oliver Bleutgen
Lennart Regebro wrote: From: Oliver Bleutgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was thinking more of something like adding the checks individually to each method in stock zope for which it is appropriate. Brian is of course right in his other mail by stating that this might and will break custom products

Re: Support for X-HTTPD-FORWARDED-FOR Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of 2.6...

2002-04-10 Thread Jim Penny
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 06:59:38PM +0200, Oliver Bleutgen wrote: Jim Washington wrote: 2. If we want to get fancy about allowing authentication using that ip address like naked ZServers can do, In lib/python/AccessControl/User.py, around line 1116, change if

Re: Support for X-HTTPD-FORWARDED-FOR Re: [Zope-dev] Speaking of2.6...

2002-04-10 Thread Jim Washington
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this IMO makes spoofing against a naked ZServer a childs play. It's just adding a custom header to the request. I also doubt that every reverse proxy overwrites this header, so zservers behind a proxy might also be hit. Note: this is using another web server to